1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FEHBP Final Rule on Provider Sanctions

FEHBP Final Rule on Provider Sanctions

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.08.04

The Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") has issued a final financial sanctions rule for health care providers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program ("FEHBP"). Two categories of financial sanctions are established by the March 3 rule: assessments, which are intended to recognize losses, costs, and damages incurred as the result of a provider's wrongful conduct, and civil monetary penalties, which are lump-sum amounts that, while computed by reference to improper claims, are intended principally to deter future violations. The bases for financial sanctions are (1) fraudulent or improper claims; (2) false or misleading statements in or about claims; and (3) failure to provide claims-related information that is required by law to be disclosed. Sanctions may be imposed only for violations that directly involve FEHBP enrollees, carriers, or funds. The final rule sets forth the procedures for imposing, determining the amount, and collecting financial sanctions, as well as providers' right to contest and appeal the imposition of financial sanctions. The March 3 final rule also clarifies the circumstances under which payments may be made from FEHBP funds to suspended providers. This rule, along with the rule governing suspension and debarment of FEHBP providers, implements the administrative sanctions enacted by the Federal Employees Health Care Protection Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-266).

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....